>>12735811>Why is that where the warming effect ended when the temperature was stable before during and after that point?Because the temperature was higher then the cooling effect from the milankovich cycle could counteract, until it was overwhelmed in the little ice age
>Doesn't explain shit.You have 2 cups of ice cold water, you place them on a refrigerated surface that can keep them the same temperature. You drop a hot rock in one. After an hour, you turn off the refrigerant and begin slowly turning on the heat, 1 degree increase at a time.
Which cup of water is warmer after 15 minutes?
>Oh wow, very convenient how contradicting yourself is just semantics.Do you understand what I'm trying to say or not, even if my original statement was not 100% precise to what I meant.
>Then go ahead and disprove the Milankovitch cycle.Except that the Milankovich cycle is not about global climate, its about the movement of the earth around the sun. It does have an effect on the climate but other factors have overridden it many times. There is no unified theory on what the effect of the cycles is, because other things muddle the data.
>Pic related. Thanks for admitting you're BTFO.Did you really just copy the picture from the wiki and think that shows me anything? I read through that already, and at different times in our history we have had cycles that match different parts of the Milankovitch cycles (120k vs 41k length cycles) and times where it doesn't match at all.
>Is this supposed to support your contention that Milankovitch cycles didn't cause the last interglacial?Yes, why are you being so thickheaded? You could just disagree with me but you seem to be strawmanning my argument in order to make it absurd, and then going "Lmao your absurd" while not acknowledging what I'm actually saying.
I am saying "Interglacial" warming was caused by the YDI, not global warming from the milankovitch cycles. The MC is currently on a warming trend, the current GW.
